********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                                Before the
                      Federal Communications Commission
                          Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                       )
                                        )              File Nos.  98100345
                                        )                        99010278
                                        )              
Long Nine, Inc.                            )           NAL/Acct. No. 918ed0035
     
Licensee, WQLZ(FM),                   )
Taylorville, IL                                 )
Facility ID # 38346                        ) 
                                      )
For a Forfeiture                           ) 


                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted:  February 25, 2000             Released:  February 28, 2000 


By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:  

                        I.  Introduction

     1.   In this Order, we rescind a forfeiture of $4,000 previously issued against Long Nine, Inc.,
licensee of Station WQLZ(FM), Taylorville, Illinois, for willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1206
of the Commission's rules, which requires a broadcast licensee, before recording or broadcasting a
telephone conversation, to inform any party to the conversation of its intent to broadcast such
conversation ("telephone conversation broadcast rule").

                        II.  Background
     
     2.   By Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL"), DA 99-1937, released September 22, 1999, the
Chief, Mass Media Bureau, determined that Long Nine, Inc., during its "Morning Disaster" show,
broadcast a live conversation between a station caller, Ms. Selby, and her step-daughter, Ms. Armstrong,
without first informing Ms. Selby, and rebroadcast the conversation a total of three times on October 22,
1997, and October 23, 1997.  After considering the circumstances in light of the Forfeiture Policy
Statement, which provides a base forfeiture of $4,000 for a violation of Section 73.1206 of the
Commission's rules, the Chief, Mass Media Bureau, proposed a forfeiture of $4,000.  Long Nine, Inc. has
submitted a response which requests cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture.  We grant the request for
rescission for the reasons that follow.
 
     3.   Long Nine, Inc. first contends that it had "no malicious intent" to violate the telephone
conversation broadcast rule because the station employee involved in the disputed telephone conversation,
Mr. Lytle, mistakenly believed that he had obtained the necessary consent from all who participated in a
multi-party station telephone conversation.  The licensee claims that prior to the broadcast, Mr. Lytle had
discussed the matter with Ms. Armstrong, and she agreed to inform Ms. Selby of the specific nature of the
later station telephone call.  When Mr. Lytle spoke with Ms. Armstrong at the time the call was placed,
however, he mistakenly interpreted her advice that "everything's cool" to mean that both she and Ms.
Selby had agreed to participate in the telephone conversation at issue.  Relying on this assurance, he did
not think it was necessary to separately inform Ms. Selby of his intent to record or broadcast the
conversation.  The licensee alleges that its lack of wrongful intent is demonstrated by the prompt action
it took in honoring Ms. Selby's subsequent request that the station refrain from further broadcasting the
recorded telephone conversation.  The licensee argues that, at worst, the violation occurred because of its
employee's "good faith" mistake, and that a fine is inappropriate.  Citing Liability of KGB, Inc. and
Liability of WVGO License Limited Partnership, Long Nine, Inc. further argues that cancellation or
reduction of the fine is justified because it has maintained an unblemished enforcement record, that
subsequent corrective actions were taken, and, finally, that its violation was "minor" in nature.


                        III.  Discussion
     
     4.   We have reexamined the forfeiture imposed in view of the statutory factors set forth in
Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Communications Act pertaining to the nature, circumstances, extent and
gravity of the apparent violations.  See Forfeiture Policy Statement.  In light of the facts presented in this
case, we find that the licensee made a "good faith" effort to comply with the rule.  Accordingly, rescission
of the forfeiture is appropriate.

                     IV.  Ordering Clauses
     
     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act, as amended, and Section 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Commission's rules,
the prior forfeiture of $4,000 issued against Long Nine, Inc. for violating Section 73.1206 of the
Commission's rules IS RESCINDED.
 

     6.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be sent by
Certified Mail -- Return Receipt Requested, to counsel for the licensee, David D. Oxenford, Esq., Fisher
Wayland Cooper Leader & Zaragoza, L.L.P., Suite 400, 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20006-1851.
    

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau